Crawlspace Wall Dilemma

[big john]

Same sermon, see my last post.

I'm not sure I understand. Is your interpretation is that all exposed NM cabling should always be run through holes or along running boards, and that 334.15(C) simply provides an exemption for 6/2 and 8/3 cables and larger where in unfinished basements?

...What if 320.23(A) is defining what portions of an attic are exposed work...?

Definitely a good point, but I have to agree with wireman3736 in that it seems like 320.23(A) is more concerned with protecting exposed work potentially subject to damage than defining what is exposed and what isn't.

However, I will concede that looking at 320.23(A) to define what is "exposed" and what isn't, is just about the only way it makes it legal to run perpendicular to framing members anywhere in an accessible attics and roof-spaces.

Maybe we're looking at "exposed" in the wrong context, maybe it doesn't just mean "accessible" but "exposed--to possible damage." In which case your interpetation makes a lot of sense.

-John

 

[iwire]

I'm not sure I understand. Is your interpretation is that all exposed NM cabling should always be run through holes or along running boards, and that 334.15(C) simply provides an exemption for 6/2 and 8/3 cables and larger where in unfinished basements?

John speaking for myself it is my interpretation that exposed runs of NM must comply with 334.15

Exposed meaning you can see it and or exposed to damage.

If general we have to use 334.15(A) which requires the exposed NM to 'closely follow the buildings finish.

Running perpendicular to the framing along the bottom of the floor joist or running through bored holes in the center of the joists is not (IMO) closely following the building finish.

If we happen to be in an unfinished basement 334.15(C) gives us specific permission to run big cables under the joists and small cable thought the joists without closely following the building finish.

IMO there is a gap between the actual NEC requirements and what we all typically do.

Bob

 

[wireman3736]

If general we have to use 334.15(A) which requires the exposed NM to 'closely follow the buildings finish.

Running perpendicular to the framing along the bottom of the floor joist or running through bored holes in the center of the joists is not (IMO) closely following the building finish.

If we happen to be in an unfinished basement 334.15(C) gives us specific permission to run big cables under the joists and small cable thought the joists without closely following the building finish.

IMO there is a gap between the actual NEC requirements and what we all typically do.

Bob[/QUOTE]

So if the exception only applies to basements that would mean in an unfinished garage we can't run nm straight across the studed wall from box to box through bored holes, we have to run up through to top of the wall across and back down,

 

[LarryFine]

It defines a un-finished basement as "portions or areas of the basement not intended as habital rooms and limited to storage areas, work areas, and the like". It doesn't mention what kind of ceiling finish there is, or even if there is one.

Nor does it specify how high the ceiling is from the floor, but it does imply stand-up room, as opposed to crawl-space.

 

[iwire]

So if the exception only applies to basements that would mean in an unfinished garage we can't run nm straight across the studed wall from box to box through bored holes, we have to run up through to top of the wall across and back down,

Pretty much on target and that particular issue has been talked about here before.

Some inspectors have been enforcing that.

One solution that was brought up was simply run the cable sideways through the garage walls as we always do and than put a running board across the studs in front of the cable making them 'not exposed'.

 

[big john]

...Running perpendicular to the framing along the bottom of the floor joist or running through bored holes in the center of the joists is not (IMO) closely following the building finish.

I agree. But that still doesn't answer why it is permitted in attics, contrary to 334.15(A).

And to further muddy the waters: If we extend the "320.23(A) decides what's exposed" argument a little further: Does this mean that we can't put junction boxes any more than 7 ft. from attic flooring because it no longer constitutes exposed, and as such doesn't qualify as accessible?

I don't think many would agree with that take.

-John

 

[iwire]

I agree. But that still doesn't answer why it is permitted in attics, contrary to 334.15(A).

I do not see that as a question.

334.23 is another specific code section allowing NM to be used in attics per 320.23.

320.23 allows running across the tops of joists which IMO is a bad plan but allowed.

What we are missing is any relief for areas like crawls and garages.

 

[hillbilly]

Junction boxes don't have to be "exposed"
314.29 Boxes, Conduit Bodies, and Handhole Enclosures to be Accessible.
"so that the wiring contained in them can be rendered accessible without removing any part of the building or......".
steve

 

[macmikeman]

So how is this. Instead of drilling those joists out, why not spend another 5 bucks and run the cables Along the joist until a beam is reached, thenalongthe beam, and then once again along the last joist until centered under where your panel is where you can go up thru the floor? Now you are closely following the building structure, cable can be run exposed under crawl spaces, there is no labor for joist drilling, so added wire footage cost is moot, and now are all party's happy?

 

[big john]

Iwire,

We'll have to agree to disagree. You see 334.23(A) as permitting an installation that is otherwise restricted. I see it as restricting an installation that is otherwise permitted. It goes back to one of my original points: Isn't the code supposed to be permissive?
EDIT: But then I think I see your point being that the installation isn't just passively restricted, but actively restricted by the article 334.15(A)

hillbilly,

And Definitions says: Accessible (as applied to wiring methods). Capable of being removed or exposed without damaging the building structure or finish or not permanently closed in by the structure or finish of the building. Of course, I think that's an absurd argument, too. But if we're in a debate about symantics, concerning what is "exposed" and what isn't, it seems valid.

-John

 

[iwire]

Iwire,

We'll have to agree to disagree. You see 334.23(A) as permitting an installation that is otherwise restricted. I see it as restricting an installation that is otherwise permitted.

John we can do that and we can keep going.

Yes I also believe the code is generally permissive.

334.15 covers (restricts) the installation of exposed NM in all locations.

Than 334.23(A) loosens up that restriction for attics.

I ask you please read the code words and make your decision.

Do not let our experience in the 'real world' make you bias.

In other words read the sections like you have never done electric work. (Charlies rules)

 

[wireman3736]

Thats what I like about this forum, people interpit the code in different ways and as long as we keep an open mind and think about what others say we can all learn, right or wrong, I've spent more time on this site this weekend then then ever due to the xxxxx weather in Vermont, thanks for the debate,

Moderator's note; edited out offensive language

 

[JohnE]

To answer OP,I'd suggest exactly what Macmanmike suggested.

For the current debate, I do not see any distinction in article 334 between unfinished basements and crawlspaces. A crawlspace is the same as an unfinished basement with regards to article 334. Unless of course it is a damp location.

 

[iwire]

I do not see any distinction in article 334 between unfinished basements and crawlspaces. A crawlspace is the same as an unfinished basement with regards to article 334.

I think it is quite clear the NEC considers these spaces as different.

As another example take a look at 210.8(A)(4) and 210.8(A)(5).

I also bet the building dept has a definition of a crawl vs a basement.

I bet a basement must have a certain head room to be called a basement as opposed to a crawl.

 

[infinity]

I also bet the building dept has a definition of a crawl vs a basement.

I bet a basement must have a certain head room to be called a basement as opposed to a crawl

I think that the tax assessor would also find a big difference between the two spaces.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

I see a BIG difference between crawl spaces and basements. Living in different parts of the country, some people may never see basements or crawl spaces, and probably are wondering what all the fuss is

I live in the same part of the country as Bob, the noth east.
There is a large difference between the basement and the crawl space, just ask my knees.

Generally speaking, a person can stand upright in a basement, and will have to crawl in a crawl space.
Generally speaking, more storage of "stuff" will occur in unfinished basements than crawl spaces. So some judgement will have to be exercised. I think the access to and height of a "crawl space" will have a lot to say about the wiring method used in a crawl space, so some judgement of the inspector and the installer will have to be exercised.

Generally speaking, I see no harm in stapling NM cable of any size to the bottom of joists in the crawl space area where exposure to physical damage is really non existant. I also do not see this as nonconforming to 334.15, as it is following the surface of the construction of the crawl space.

 

[LarryFine]

But if we're in a debate about symantics, concerning what is "exposed" and what isn't, it seems valid.

EXPOSED

 

[George Stolz]

As I was sitting here, pondering a new angle to take this, it occured to me:

Attics are not exposed work.

How do I come to this bold assumption?

Because of the nature of Article 334 (and the code in general). 334.15 covers all exposed work. 334.23 covers all attics. 334.23 is not a subsection of 334.15: they are independent sections.

So, basements are considered exposed work, because they are in the "exposed work" section. Crawlspaces are very arguably not attics (I think we can all agree on that). What does that leave? They are not basements, because 210.8 and the other sections quoted thus far claim they are seperate entities. So, they are none of the above.

This leaves two arguments, as I see it:

• Are they exposed or not exposed?
• If they are exposed, are the joists the building finish?

I did a quick internet search under different keywords to try to pull up a definition of "building finish". All I found was drywall, paneling, and such things. I'm interested to see how that camp can establish their case for the underside of joists being "building finish."

 

[wireman3736]

As I was sitting here, pondering a new angle to take this, it occured to me:

Attics are not exposed work.

How do I come to this bold assumption?

Because of the nature of Article 334 (and the code in general). 334.15 covers all exposed work. 334.23 covers all attics. 334.23 is not a subsection of 334.15: they are independent sections.

So, basements are considered exposed work, because they are in the "exposed work" section. Crawlspaces are very arguably not attics (I think we can all agree on that). What does that leave? They are not basements, because 210.8 and the other sections quoted thus far claim they are seperate entities. So, they are none of the above.

This leaves two arguments, as I see it:

• Are they exposed or not exposed?
• If they are exposed, are the joists the building finish?

I did a quick internet search under different keywords to try to pull up a definition of "building finish". All I found was drywall, paneling, and such things. I'm interested to see how that camp can establish their case for the underside of joists being "building finish."

your getting warm:

 

[George Stolz]

Generally speaking, more storage of "stuff" will occur in unfinished basements than crawl spaces. So some judgement will have to be exercised. I think the access to and height of a "crawl space" will have a lot to say about the wiring method used in a crawl space, so some judgement of the inspector and the installer will have to be exercised.

Keep going: what defines a traffic'ed crawlspace versus a unused one? I've seen crawlspaces full of seasonal items, stuff the people moved (but should have left on the curb of their last house), all kinds of stuff. Mike said in Hawaii, it's the surfboard storage zone. Mine is full of old axles from when the house was drug in (just don't tell the bank).

I'm just curious as to what you'd see and say "Ah ha! This needs protection" versus "Ah ha! This one's never going to be used."

I also do not see this as nonconforming to 334.15, as it is following the surface of the construction of the crawl space.

Can you bring yourself to say "the building finish", Pierre?